User talk:Flagrant hysterical curious

Welcome Flagrant hysterical curious!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 48,352,941 registered editors!

Hello Flagrant hysterical curious. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm Mathglot, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:   Introduction to Wikipedia   The five pillars of Wikipedia   Editing tutorial   How to edit a page   Simplified Manual of Style   The basics of Wikicode   How to develop an article   How to create an article   Help pages   What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:   Do be bold   Do assume good faith   Do be civil   Do keep cool!   Do maintain a neutral point of view   Don't spam   Don't infringe copyright   Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest   Don't commit vandalism   Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:   Ask a question

or you can:   Get help at the Teahouse

or even:   Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:   Fight vandalism   Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome   Help contribute to articles   Perform maintenance tasks

Become a member of a project that interests you   Help design new templates   Subscribe and contribute to The Signpost

To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.

Please remember to:

• Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
• Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
  

The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!

Sincerely, Mathglot (talk) 09:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)   (Leave me a message)

• Español
• Deutsch
• Français
• Italiano
• עברית
• Русский
• 日本語
• Polski
• فارسی

Vachement bien fait

Flagrant hysterical curious, good job creating your account! Now it will be much easier for you to communicate with other editors, and vice-versa. Instead of having messsages split over a dozen different IP talk pages that you can never find again, they'll all be in one place. Plus, in just three more days, you will have "autoconfirmed status", which means you will be able to create articles, move pages, edit semi-protected pages, and upload files like photographs and images.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me here on your Talk page, adding {{ping|Mathglot}} to your message to attract my attention, or you may also add a message on my talk page. Once again, welcome! P.S. Are you a fan of beat poetry? Your username reminds me of one... Mathglot (talk) 10:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Editing the lead

Another editor partially reverted your changes to the lead of Propaganda, and at Jargon, for good reason, imho. Remember what I said about Editing the lead; it's quite difficult for a new editor, and I'd recommend holding off making changes to the WP:LEAD of an article until you have more experience at Wikipedia. If you see something in the Lead that you think needs changing right away and can't wait because there's a huge, glaring error or something, then instead of changing the article lead, please instead open a section on the article Talk page, explain what you'd like to change in the Lead, and get some feedback from other editors who are familiar with the article, and with Wikipedia's numerous policies and guidelines first. I think you will run into a lot of reverts if you keep heading straight for the Lead, so I hope you can accept this advice in the spirit of good will in which it is intended, and concentrate on making changes first to the body, and avoiding the Lead of the article for now, or discussing your changes first on the Talk page. On est bien d'accord? Mathglot (talk) 10:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I just undid some of your changes to the WP:LEAD at Political geography, with the intention of keeping some of it, but ran into a roadblock trying to fix some broken formatting which couldn't be simply undone (I tried several ways, but it just became too time-consuming), so I had to roll back those four edits. Sorry about that, but this is actually a pretty good example of what I was just talking about above: rather than just jump into an article and start changing the definition and the WP:LEADPARAGRAPH, you'll have better luck, I think, if you make changes to the body of the article, and discuss any changes to the lead on the Talk page, before you make them. I'm really hoping that you will lay off making changes to the lead in the near future, as I can see that you are repeatedly running into problems with this. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 11:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Ditto Gaslighting; lead changes reverted to status quo ante. And Mind games. Mathglot (talk) 11:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Use secondary sources

I've reverted your recent edits at Self-esteem, because they were based on primary sources and because the assertions you made about researchers was unsupported.

Please rely on secondary sources to support your assertions. An assertion like:

Some researchers have begun to differentiate between global evaluations of the self, ("self-esteem,") and "evaluations of specific abilities or qualities" (also called "domain-specific selfconcepts")

with refs to journal articles with the words "global" and "self-esteem" in the title, do not support the assertion, or prove its relevance to the article. Instead, find a secondary source that supports it.

Also, expressions like "Some researchers" are frowned upon, and likely to attract a {{who?}} tag. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Connotation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Signs

Discourse analysis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Difference

Metatheory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Duality principle

Psycholinguistics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Difference

Type–token distinction (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Difference

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

But don't remove the message above, until you've fixed the five problems listed. Do you understand the problem the bot has identified, and do you know how to fix it? You should start, by understanding what a Disambiguation page is. First read Wikipedia:Disambiguation, especially section Links to disambiguation pages. If you have questions, you can {{ping}} me, or just ask below, adding {{Help me}} to your question, and someone will be along to answer it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk page protocol

(edit conflict)I signed your post at Talk:Ouroboros#terminology for you.

Please remember always to sign your comments on Talk pages using four tildes: ~~~~. Please read WP:THREAD and WP:FOURTILDES for further details on proper usage of talk pages at Wikipedia. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Proper citation of sources

I undid six revisions of yours at Distancing language. You removed sourced content without explanation, and you attempted to add content, using non-specific google search urls which didn't reference a particular source, such as footnote [1] on the very first sentence in revision 880062866. Please see Help:Footnotes for tips on how to create proper footnotes. I find that using the {{citation}} templates helps create a proper citation; see: {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, and {{cite journal}}. Mathglot (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Use reliable sources, not Wikipedia in refs

Please always use a reliable source when supporting content you add to articles. I undid three revisions of yours at Grammatical gender, because you added a <ref> containing a Wikipedia url, but Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Please read WP:SOURCES and WP:IRS. Mathglot (talk) 10:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Euphemism has been reverted.
Your edit here to Euphemism was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jsd/article/download/50496/27126) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

SYNTH at Euphemism

Hi, as the message above explains why XLinkBot removed your edits at Euphemism for a bad external link.

But just fyi: had it not done so, I would have reverted this edit of yours at Euphemism for another reason, namely WP:SYNTH. "Synth", in wiki-parlance, is a type of Original research, which is forbidden due to Wikipedia's requirements for Verifiability and sourcing. In a nutshell, it's when you take Fact One from source A, and Fact Two from source B, and then you add a statement to the article making some kind of comparison or union of Facts One and Two, where neither of the two sources actually said that; that would be a synthesis of material from two (or more) sources made by the Wikipedia editor.

In this particular case, one source mentions 'euphemism' (but not 'innuendo') and another soure mentions 'innuendo' (but not 'euphemism') but the text added to the article says something unified about both in Wikipedia's voice; that's the part I would have reverted due to violation of WP:SYNTH. Please be sure that everything you add to articles is backed up by material at an independent, secondary, reliable source, and does not depend on synthesizing material based on more than one source. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Flagrant hysterical curious, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Usage (language) have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Flagrant hysterical curious, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Sincerely, Masum Rezatalk 23:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Come play the Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi Flagrant hysterical curious!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. Hope to see you there! Play The Wikipedia Adventure This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Connotation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Signs

Metatheory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Duality principle

Psycholinguistics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Difference

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Magical thinking

Thanks for your contributions to Magical thinking. I noticed that some of the content you have added does not have a footnote to a reliable source. Wikipedia's verifiability policy is a core principle of Wikipedia; please make sure everything you add is backed up by a reliable source. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Bare urls

Thanks for your contribution to Cargo cult. And thanks for adding a reference for your content, as you did in this edit for the Peter Lawrence quote. Unfortunately, you only added a url, and bare urls ban be problematic for verification. Please use a standard citation, as described in Help:Footnotes. The citation templates {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, and {{cite web}} may be helpful in this regard. Here's a mockup of {{cite web}} you can copy and paste, for English works:

<ref name="Smith-2018">{{cite web |title= |last1= |first1= |url= |date= |website= |publisher= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |accessdate= |quote= }}

or, for a French title:

<ref name="Nomdefamille-yyyy">{{cite web |language=French |title=Titre originale |trans-title=Title in English |last1=Nomdefamille |first1=Prenom |url= |date=yyyy |website= |publisher= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |accessdate= |quote= }}

Hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC) updated by Mathglot (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Sheilah Martin

Hi, just letting you know I undid some of your changes at Sheilah Martin because I think the article flowed better beforehand. In particular, I don't know if it's worth having a new section about the general bilingualism requirement for Supreme Court justices in this particular article. I think that sort of content would be better suited for inclusion in one of our existing articles about the Supreme Court itself. Let me know if you have any questions or want to discuss my undo further. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 00:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

What about adding something about "functional bilingualism" to Supreme Court of Canada#Appointment of Justices? I think that would be a good spot for a brief discussion of that new requirement! /wiae /tlk 00:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Major re-orgs with no discussion

I've noticed some major re-orgs of sections within articles, on several articles, which have been undertaken with no discussion on the talk page, and not even an edit summary. Please always use an edit summary, and for re-orgs at this level, discussion at the Talk page helps. If you choose to be bold, that works too, but be prepared to observe WP:BRD. For example, in this edit at Passing (gender), you reordered various sections of the article, but the previous ordering was much better, imho, so I've reverted the change. Feel free to open a section on the talk page to discuss your intentions with that change. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

There were a couple of other, older ones I wanted to link as further examples, but before I found them, I found this more recent major re-org at Third gender moving top level sections around, not for the better, imho. This is just way too big a reorganization of the structure of the article without discussing it first. The sectioning has been pretty much stable for at least a year, which gives it a level of WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Major changes such as this should be discussed first on the Talk page. Please do not do major restructuring of articles without prior discussion on the Talk page. If not caught and reverted quickly, it can be disruptive, because other editors may come along and make beneficial changes in various parts of the article, and if caught late, it is much more difficult to undo a big re-org. So, please: don't do these re-orgs anymore; go to Talk first.

Wikipedia is based on collaboration and discussion among editors, in order to achieve consensus. If you go your own way and refuse to discuss, it might eventually be seen as disruptive. Discussion includes responding to comments at article Talk pages, and also here on your User Talk page. To respond here, click the blue, [Edit] link in the right margin, even with the section header above. In the edit box, add your comments, with two colons in front of each paragraph in order to indent it properly (see WP:THREAD) and at the very end, type four tildes (~~~~) to sign it. Add an Edit summary in the box given for it and click the "Publish changes" button. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I found one of the ones I was looking for before, it's at Human male sexuality in these two edits. Same thing applies, more or less, as above. In this case, I really thought that placing section Male sexually violent strategies before section Sexual orientation was really putting the cart before the horse, which is why I reverted. But, that's what the Article talk page is there for: if you see a justification for that reordering, just raise a topic on the Talk page, and try to achieve consensus for your changes. That's how it works around here. Please respect that process. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I would like to second Mathglot's comments: making major structural changes to articles without leaving an edit summary is at a minimum rude, but potentially problematic and disruptive. Please be sure to leave edit summaries explaining what you're doing and why. --JBL (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

There is not a reason to make major changes to an article without comment. Dawnseeker2000 20:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Algorithmic game theory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Agent (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikilinks

Hi - regarding the change you recently made to Île d'Orléans, there is a better way to achieve that. If you create a wikilink by putting square brackets around the word, you can target the link at a particular page without changing the word that will be displayed. You can see how I did that at Île d'Orléans if you go into edit mode, but basically you type: [[name of target page|text you want displayed]]. See WP:Wikilink for more on this. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Thankyou! (Flagrant hysterical curious (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC))

February 2019

Your addition to Suicide of Tyler Clementi has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Use English

I reverted three of your edits to Quebec French. The correct spelling in English of the province is 'Quebec', even though it is spelled 'Québec' in French.

When writing for English Wikipedia, the way a word is spelled in English determines how we use it in articles, even if the word comes from another language and is spelled differently there. This applies to place names, too; so we say, "Munich" (not München), "Rome" (not Roma), and "Seville" (not Sevilla). See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Use English. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Uh oh, I see that this is also a problem in Distinct Society, only there, you made a dozen edits, mixing in valid additions and removals of content with the spelling changes, so that a simple revert was not possible; instead, the misspellings had to be removed individually without affecting anything else, and without altering filenames or titles that actually contain the accent. I hope this is not also the case in other articles, but I will check your contributions and see.

Please immediately stop introducing any further non-English spellings like Québec into English Wikipedia. Further actions of this kind after the date of this notice will be considered disruptive. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• I've reverted your changes of spelling of Quebec at History of Quebec French. (These occurred prior to the notice above.) Mathglot (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• I've reverted your changes of spelling of Quebec at Politics of Quebec. (These occurred prior to the notice above.) Mathglot (talk) 09:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips about English Wikipedia (Flagrant hysterical curious (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC))

Changes to defining sentence

Please do not make changes to the first sentence of an article, without a proper edit summary, and without discussing it first on the Talk page, as you did in this edit to History of Quebec French. Further, as a new user, you shouldn't be making unilateral changes to any part of the lead, until you understand better the purpose and function of the lead; see remarks above at #Editing the lead. But that goes double for the first sentence of an article, which defines the topic of the article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: École historique de Montréal (March 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Hell in a Bucket was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:École historique de Montréal and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:École historique de Montréal, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Seigniorial regime in Quebec moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Seigniorial regime in Quebec, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. Nor does it yet have the structure and content expected of a mainspace article. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Just a heads-up: Drafts that haven’t been submitted or edited for six months may be summarily deleted. If you haven’t abandoned this draft, you should do something with it. Mathglot (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Simone Fischer-Hübner

The article Simone Fischer-Hübner has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Comatmebro (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Eva Johanna Rubin moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Eva Johanna Rubin, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Russell Resolutions moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Russell Resolutions, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Russell Resolutions (March 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Russell Resolutions and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Russell Resolutions, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: École historique de Montréal (March 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mgbo120 was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:École historique de Montréal and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:École historique de Montréal, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and will be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

~~Cheers~~Mgbo120 19:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Christian Metal

What were you thinking with this edit to Christian Metal? "Satanic"? "Morally corrupt"? You know better than that; you’ve been around long enough now to know that neutral point of view is a core principle, and that you can’t add whatever you feel like to an article, everything must be verifiable in reliable sources. So knock it off.

And also, please start using edit summaries; 97% of your edits have no summary at all. Several editors have mentioned this to you already. Mathglot (talk) 07:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

→→I used words from the source to help the phrase be more reflective of the source (Flagrant hysterical curious (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC))

@Mathglot: I have asked for feedback on the talk page and it has been suggested that I let you know that I have solicited feedback and I may reinstate the edit. Thanks. (Flagrant hysterical curious (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC))

Discretionary sanctions notice: gender-related controversies

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Toxic masculinity and related pages fall within this topic area. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf Thank you for the information. I was not aware of the more stringent set of rules for that specific page. I had noticed explanations elsewhere so I am moderatly aware of the administrative ruling mentioned but when I made my edit (or edits) I didn't know I was contributing to a page that fell under the policy. Now I do, thank you. (Flagrant hysterical curious (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC))

May 2019

Please stop making major, unexplained, changes to the lead of articles, like you did in these recent edits at Toxic masculinity. You moved text out of the lead, and moved a large amount of content around in the body, making it difficult to figure out in the long, confusing diff exactly what had happened. Your change was later reverted, with good reason, by Sangdeboeuf. In addition to the above, you left no edit summary, explaining what you were trying to accomplish, or how this was intended to improve the article. Wikipedia is a collaborative platform that operates by consensus; one method of collaboration is using an edit summary with every edit, describing how it improves the article. As your two recent edits are the only edits you have ever made on this article, please respect the principle of consensus, and propose and discuss changes to the lead, and major re-orgs with habitual editors of the article, on the article Talk page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I reverted your recent change to Heritability of IQ for essentially the same reasons. The lead is already tagged for too much jargon, and this didn't improve it. Your change to the defining first sentence described the topic awkwardly as "defined by research", which isn't the case; the previous definition could definitely stand improvement, but this didn't help. Why is the "Estimates" section which previously contained eight subsections, better off organized as nine top-level sections with no hierarchy? This article has over a thousand edits by hundreds of editors, and you had no edit before yesterday. Please discuss major reorgs om the talk page with established editors of the page, and always leave an edit summary. Mathglot (talk) 08:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm echoing Mathglot's above concerns. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ecological niche, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Biotic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Guy Frégault moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Guy Frégault, is much too rough a translation to remain published. I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article is in fluent English, and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.

(He is notable, and I started rewriting, but there's just too much, and you should do the work yourself) DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Reverted edits to One-upmanship page

Edits were terrible and made in bad faith. This account is a bot or a troll or something. - Metalello ^talk 04:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Metalello. Regarding your feedback and concerns, and as a reply: I am not a bot. I edit in order to improve the encyclopedia and I make efforts to follow guidelines, policy, and consensus. I suppose I would put myself in the "or something" category if I had to choose between troll, bot, and "something."

In the specific case of the page that you mention, I will step away from editing One-upmanship for a while as I do endeavour to avoid editing back and forth in a style that some describe as edit-waring. ::I didn't realize that I had twice made an edit directly after you had made an edit.

I am an editor, making edits. I hope this addresses your concern over this account and has shed light on the nature of my activity (Flagrant hysterical curious (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC))

This talk page documents in copious detail that not only are you not making good edits, you're not even making good faith efforts to improve your editing. I think it's best if you step away from Wikipedia entirely, indefinitely. - Metalello ^talk 22:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

What is a lead section and how to write it

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

Hello, I'm LiberatorG. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Herbert Gutman have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. LiberatorG (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Internet privacy does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! LiberatorG (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kiss cam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Social game (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistent and inappropriate pattern of editing

I have reverted a number of edits you made on 5 June, 2019 because they are not constructive. In particular, I am concerned that your editing exhibits a totally inconsistent pattern; that you are removing properly sourced content from articles, without any explanation and that your contributions do not conform with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I do not have the time to review your edit history in full,but based on the editing pattern detected in just part of a single day’s edits, I suspect that there are many more problems to be found. In some articles, you are taking single sentence paragraphs or short paragraphs and combining them into one longer paragraph as you did

• here
• here
• here
• here
• here

But elsewhere, taking longer paragraphs and breaking them up into shorter paragraphs or single sentence paragraphs as you did

• here
• here
• here
• here

In places, you are also removing properly referenced content when it does not appear to be a good fit with your revised paragraph structure, and all this without any explanation, as you did

• here

This inconsistent pattern of editing defies comprehension, particularly since you have consistently ignored repeated advice to use edit summaries to explain why the changes were considered necessary. It looks like you are simply editing for the sake of editing –making changes because you can, rather than because they result in substantial improvements to the article.

Please stop altering the paragraph structure of articles unless there are very substantial reasons which you have explained in either the edit summary or the talk page. And, never remove properly referenced content without first discussing it on the talk page. To remove sourced content, you will need to show that it is factually incorrect, that it represents a gross misinterpretation of the original source, is copyrighted content or in special cases that it represents some kind of minority/ obscure viewpoint.

Please take the time to acquaint yourself with Wikipedia’s Manual of Style, WP:MOS before continuing with editing. Note, in particular, that the number of single sentence paragraphs should be minimised. See MOS:PARA 175.32.56.121 (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Segmentation, targeting and positioning; Unexplained addition of content that is factually incorrect

I have reverted an edit you recently made on Segmenting-targeting-positioning here. The edit was unexplained, unreferenced and factually incorrect. There were other concerns with your edit which are explained in the edit summary.

It is simply not correct to say that the STP process has a “chronological order”. Some contemporary approaches begin with the target market (or a target customer)and build up a segment from that. In the marketing literature, this is known as “reverse segmentation” or “look-alike targeting” and is used extensively in online environments. These contemporary approaches are likely to result in traditional segmentation becoming virtually redundant in the not too distant future.

I have noticed that, on your talk page, many editors have asked you to provide an edit summary for each of your edits. Yet, you have consistently ignored this advice. Edits lacking an edit summary or an appropriate reference can be reverted without notice.

If your edits are likely to be controversial, you are expected to discuss these on the talk page and get a consensus before undertaking the planned changes. If you are editing in an unfamiliar subject area, it may be difficult to identify what is likely to be controversial or not. In such cases, you should use reliable sources to check whether your proposed edits are accurate and represent a generally accepted viewpoint within the subject area. At a bare minimum,you must provide an edit summary for each edit, so that other editors can understand why you thought your changes were necessary and canget a handle on what you are trying to achieve.This is a Wikipedia requirement. Consistent failure to follow Wikipedia guidelines can lead to the suspension of editing privileges.

Another general guideline is that you should only change articles where your edit substantially ‘’’improves’’’ it. Minor tweaking, peripheral changes, formatting changes, etc., should be avoided since they tend to alienate other editors.

175.32.56.121 (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Russell Resolutions (July 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Mjs1991 were: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Russell Resolutions and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Russell Resolutions, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Mjs1991 (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Taíno, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Campesino (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Reverted edit to Ukiyo page

I've reverted your edit to the Ukiyo page. It's clear you're a low-level and low-effort troll, so there's no point truly putting anything of substance here; merely, just adding to the pile of 'your edits are terrible and you should probably be blocked'. I hope someone takes up the effort for that some day. It's clear you probably deserve it. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Flagrant hysterical curious,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 16:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Cincinnati chili, you may be blocked from editing. I see that you have a long history of major changes to the lead of multiple articles. Please stop this now, as it's disruptive. valereee (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello could I please be provided with information about why my edits to Cincinnati chili have been found to be defined as disruptive to Wikipedia? Thank you (Flagrant hysterical curious (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC))

It's your pattern of editing, not that one set of edits all by itself. Read through your talk page history here; you'll see multiple editors asking you not to make major changes to lead sections of stable articles for no useful reason without first discussing at talk. You just keep doing it, though; Cincinnati chili was just the latest example. I believe you are probably interested in contributing competently, but as it is right now you're often causing extra work for other editors, which is disruptive, and you don't seem to be listening. Please stop making major changes to lead sections NOW. --valereee (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you an admin? (Flagrant hysterical curious (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC))

FHC, I am (you can see who is a sysop by hovering over their name on a talk page), but that's immaterial. Any experienced, well-intentioned editor is expected to discuss editing patterns they're concerned about with any other editor. All of these editors on your talk page have just as much authority to do that as an admin. It looks to me like Mathglot, who is an experienced user with 25000 edits over the last 13 years, has been trying their best to engage with you to try to help you to become a more productive editor. That editor is trying to HELP. We all want to see well-intentioned new editors succeed. Mathglot clearly believes you are basically well-intentioned or they wouldn't waste their time. Please accept their offer to help in the section below. --valereee (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

A continuing disruptive pattern

Let's start with a bit of good news: your rate of using edit summaries is improved (it is now up to 11%). That's better than before, but still leaves tons of room for improvement. Please use an edit summary regularly on all your edits. Also, a bit more subtly perhaps: but rather than say what you just did ("copy edit, delete "well", add semicolon")—which anybody can see with a diff—tell us rather why you did it. As you're about to write an edit summary, think to yourself: "How does this edit make the article better?" Answer that question, in the edit summary.

As far as your general editing, I'm seeing a lot of the same, questionable stuff as before. There seems to be a new toy in your bag of tricks, involving adding or subtracting paragraph breaks, especially in the lead. Even something as small as that can sometimes definitely improve the readability of an article, but still every edit must be an improvement, and you should say in the summary why you think it's an improvement. I've looked at a bunch of paragraph-break changes of yours, and mostly I just left them alone; I think the great majority were not an improvement to the article, but neither did they make the article noticeably worse; it just seemed like a wash, almost like you were just mindlessly boosting your edit count. I don't think that was your purpose, though, because you're already extended-confirmed, so I'm not sure what the point of those paragraph-break changes were. In a very few cases, I thought they detracted from the article.

More commonly, I notice you reordering text, either from the lead to the body and vice-versa, or within the lead. Again, this is sometimes justifiable, but you still have to explain why. I did notice in numerous cases, that you pulled a sentence out of one place in the lead which had a reference following it a sentence or two or three later, and moved it out past the scope of the reference into a new place lower down in the lead. That leaves the moved sentence apparently unreferenced, and hurts verifiability. I reverted two edits of yours of that type (at Adaptive performance, and at Kindness), and if I notice more of them, I'll revert them as well. Please make sure when you are reordering text that:

1. it improves the article (make sure you explain why in the summary; "ce, reordered text" is no justification)
2. you're not moving sourced content outside the scope of its citation. (See WP:NAMEDREFS; that might help you.)

I still think you are making way too many unjustified changes to the lead of many articles. It doesn't look like vandalism to me, but the bottom line is, if you look at a bag of one hundred article changes of yours and ask yourself, "How much did these edits improve the encyclopedia"? the answer is pretty much, "Hardly at all," or "Not at all". When you mix that with a small percentage of definitely problematic edits of yours which clearly make articles worse, or which create problems for other editors, either because they have to spend time undoing your edits, or fixing them ex post facto, or because they have to come here to explain their concerns to you and find diffs to show what they are talking about, well, the balance of all that, is that your editing is disruptive and not a net positive to the encyclopedia project as a whole. I'm sorry to say this, but in my opinion, the encyclopedia would be slightly better off if you stopped editing. Or at least, if you stopped editing the way you have been, and significantly changed your approach.

May I ask you a few questions?

1. Why are you here?
2. You are a volunteer, as are we all. What do you hope to achieve here?
3. Do you feel you have been achieving what you intended to? I.e., is it working, or not working?
4. How do you feel about the messages on your talk page, pointing out things other editors are unhappy about?
5. Do you feel you need to change your editing behavior based on those messages, or do you think it's okay to pretty much ignore them, and continue editing the way you have been?

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Flagrant hysterical curious,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disruptively edit Wikipedia, as you did at Liberté Inc.. Yet another unexplained move of large sections in and out of the lead, and literally hours after being warned. This is your final warning. valereee (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

(Flagrant hysterical curious (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC))

Hello, if anyone can assist me with answers in regards to these 4 specific areas I would appreciate it.

• (a)Is this a conduct dispute?
• (b)As I do not edit in order to be disruptive, and make my edits with the goal of building and improving wikipedia, this means that I disagree with valereee. In cases such as this is it appropriate to post on Requests for Comment?
• (c)I the case of Liberté Inc.: I had applied undo to that edit so the edit spoken of did not exist when I was warned, can someone advise if this is pertinent?
• (d) I would like to continue editing, but fear a ban that hinges on definitions of disruptive. I have read policy and guidelines and am unclear about how disruptive editing is usually defined, identified, discussed, dealt with on wikipedia. If I could hear feedback about this I would appreciate it.

Thanks (Flagrant hysterical curious (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC))

Please stop using the help me template for this. It's a bit like shopping around and inappropriate. You can follow the instructions in the warnings and discuss it. Praxidicae (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

And as a side note, I suggest you scroll up and answer the earlier questions someone asked because your last 20 or so edits seem rather unhelpful. Praxidicae (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

FHC, since you don't seem to want to talk to anyone here, your best bet is WP:Teahouse, where you can ask questions and get help from experienced editors. Please listen to them, they'll be trying to help. --valereee (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

With respect to your questions, I hope this will be helpful:

• a) Discussions about user behavior properly belong on WP:USERTALK pages, like this one. You can find a list of user behavior guidelines here. CAT:CONDUCT may also be helpful. User behavior is governed by these conduct policies and these behavioral guidelines.
• b) If I'm not mistaken, a long time ago there used to be Rfc's about user behavior on Wikipedia, but this is no longer the case. Preliminary discussions about user behavior occurs on the user's Talk page. If escalation is required, various noticeboards are available, depending on the nature of the conduct in question, including the Edit warring noticeboard, and the Administrators' noticeboard: Incidents, where any user, admin or not, may open a discussion about user behavior. But an admin can sanction a user at any time for cause, including restrictions on editing privileges, in line with Wikipedia:Blocking policy.
• c) Yeah, that's probably relevant. Your two edits to Liberté were this one, moving a paragraph up to the lead, followed by this self-revert 14 minutes later. Neither contained an edit summary, so it's hard to know your intent in either edit, especially the removal. In my opinion, the revert was correct, as the material is more appropriate to the #History section, and because moving it to the Lead violates MOS:LEADNO.
• d) A WP:BAN is different from a WP:BLOCK; I assume you are talking about the latter. You didn't say which policy pages you read, but I assume you started with Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline. The guideline supplement WP:HERE may also be relevant, especially the second and fourth bullets, in my opinion.

FWIW, I looked at your last few dozen edits, and I did notice two edits which were clear improvements, most notably the addition of an {{Expand language}} template in this edit to Perpetual usufruct stub, and an addition of an image in this edit to Punch (magazine). There were some other minor improvements in punctuation or grammar such as here (invalid comma), here (def. article), or here (needed comma). However I found most of the rest of the edits to be about pointless merging (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) or splitting (6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) of paragraphs with arguable benefit to the articles involved, or changing the order of items within the See also section (13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18), or pointless reordering of text or images (19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28). It's not clear if any of the rest of them are clearly an improvement; most are a wash. None contained an edit summary.

That said, I haven't seen any of the questionable major re-orgs, such as previously discussed above, at least not in that two-day window of edits (excepting the revert), so that's a good thing. If you can now also do the following:

• make sure every edit of yours improves the article in some concrete way,
• use an edit summary with every edit, explaining why it's an improvement, and
• respond to other users when they want to discuss something with you here, or at article talk pages

then I think that you will be out of the woods. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing my questions. Thanks for taking a look at my last 30 or so edits and giving feedback in regards to the criticism raised. Also, thank you for providing links and suggestions of applicable policy and information about conduct standards. (Flagrant hysterical curious (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC))

Improving the encyclopedia through translation

Rather than get bogged down in piles of questionable or minor edits, many of which have drawn other users to examine your contribution history, why not redirect your efforts in a way that would be of clear benefit to the encyclopedia? You are bilingual; there are many articles on French Wikipedia that do not exist here. Some of them would clearly benefit English Wikipedia. I have done a bunch of these myself, such as the 70,000 Character Petition, Le Testament, National Office for Veterans and Victims of War, Le Juif et la France, and others.

I can tell you how to find such articles in need of translation, and give you some tips on creating new articles on English Wikipedia. I think this would be a better use of your time, a bigger improvement to the encyclopedia, and is likely to avoid the kind of problems that have been raised on your Talk page. Are you interested in knowing more? Mathglot (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Any thoughts about this? Mathglot (talk) 09:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Concerne ma maîtrise du la langue française... actuellement je ne me sens pas <<fonctionnellement bilingue>>, alors parfois j'ai évité certains activités liées à la traduction parce que je ne veux pas être <<disruptive>>/perturbant. I will likely make more attempts at article creation if and when I feel capable. Thank you for letting me know I can reach out to you about translation work and/or article creation work.(Flagrant hysterical curious (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC))

Au contraire, mon ami. In order to translate from fr → en, you do not have to be perfectly bilingual; just native or near-native competence in English, which you obviously are, and decent French, which you easily qualify for. As far as the disruption issue, that's the whole reason I suggested translation: it's the perfect vehicle for you to contribute to Wikipedia, and will practically eliminate any possibility of you falling accidentally into any disruptive patterns, because the French original will somewhat constrain you. Trust me: I know the encyclopedia, and I know what you are capable of; you could be really good at this. I can almost guarantee that if you do this, you will not have any issues with disruptive patterns.

I don't want to push something on you if you are truly not interested, but if it sounds intriguing and your only worry was about your level of French or the possibility of disruption, I don't want you to give up too easily because of misplaced concerns; neither one of those are an issue here. I can help you find articles in need of translation in almost any area of the encyclopedia that interests you. We can even collaborate, and both work on the same translations, if that makes you feel any better about it. Let's give it a try; what do you say? Mathglot (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Alors? Qu'est-ce que t'en dis? Mathglot (talk) 10:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:École historique de Montréal

Hello, Flagrant hysterical curious. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "École historique de Montréal".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Flagrant hysterical curious,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Seigniorial regime in Quebec

Hello, Flagrant hysterical curious. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Seigniorial regime in Quebec".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 11:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Bare urls in references

Thanks for your edit at The Granite Club. When you add a WP:BAREURL as a reference, it's better than nothing, but there are various problems with it. The wikimedia software can turn a bareurl into a full citation for you, so it's very little work. When you are in Preview mode with the edit window and wikicode visible, click the little black Pencil icon top right on the edit toolbar above the edit window, and select Visual editing. This will switch you to the Visual Editor. Find the reference, and click it. Follow the instructions in the Dialog box, and the VE will automatically turn your bareurl into a full citation. See mw:Help:VisualEditor/User guide#Editing references for details. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge third anniversary

The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada is approaching its third-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and have no unsourced claims.

You may use the above button to submit entries, or bookmark this link for convenience. For more information, please see WP:CAN10K. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  valereee (talk) 13:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• Huge rearrangement of material with zero edit summary or talk, then a few minutes later self-revert ditto, at Ain't I a Woman?, which is literally the first contribution I've checked since my last visit a month ago. FHC, this has been discussed to death here on your talk page. Subsequent blocks will likely be of increasing length. --valereee (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'm just chiming in here to voice my frustration for the record. This user's talk page has been on my watchlist ever since the user made large, undiscussed, and quite frankly nonsensical changes to Ellison Onizuka's article] back in February of this year. At the time, I assumed good faith and just reverted the article back and left a comment on this talk page asking the user to begin using edit summaries, thinking there was probably a good reason the user made the change and that if the user simply used edit summaries, knowing the rationale for their changes would magically make the large rearrangements of text somehow make sense. Yet, this user completely ignored my request and has continued to make large, disruptive changes without edit summaries for the subsequent eight months despite the mountain of pleas from other editors on this talk page. Watching from a distance, I don't recall this user ever actually explaining why they are making such major organizational changes to the articles they edit, with the sole exception being at Talk:Cincinnati_chili. It's obvious that this user either doesn't get it or has such low respect for other users that they don't feel a need to respond to the concerns of others. I do not doubt that many hours of labor have been put in trying to counsel this user and clean up their messes. I endorse this very short block and would support significantly longer blocks in the future if this behavior continues. Aoi (青い) (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Guy Frégault concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Guy Frégault, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Guy Frégault has been accepted

Guy Frégault, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Normative, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Standard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Francis Dupuis-Déri

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Francis Dupuis-Déri, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement of http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Q9v5jdeTeqkJ:https://www.pmpress.org/blog/authors-artists-comrades/francis-dupuis-deri/&hl=en&gl=ca&strip=1&vwsrc=0. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

This is your final warning. Further violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy will result in you being blocked from editing.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse query

• FHC, re your teahouse query: a copyvio means you copy-and-pasted content from another site into wikipedia, which isn't allowed. You must read the source material, then summarize it in your own words. In this case it looks like you copy-pasted from this website and then made a few changes. That's never okay. Never copy-paste anything unless you're directly quoting something and attributing the quote. This is extremely serious. You will not get multiple warnings for copyright violation. You will get a block, and other editors will start going through your other contributions to see if you've done other copyright violations. --valereee (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to provide further explanations, especially regarding source material and summarization. I will keep the criteria for speedy deletion in mind when I contribute, especially regarding copyright violations and notabilitity as in this case those 2 criteria were the reason the page was deleted. I welcome any editors to examine my contributions.(Flagrant hysterical curious (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC))

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Russell Resolutions concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Russell Resolutions, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Russell Resolutions has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, at Draft:Russell Resolutions: I have stopped the deletion process, because it's clear that they're notable. But the article needs context and expansion .Please do it, rather than abandon the article--then let me know on my user talk page. Thanks! DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Eva Johanna Rubin concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Eva Johanna Rubin, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Eva Johanna Rubin

Hello, Flagrant hysterical curious. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Eva Johanna Rubin".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Recent additions of galleries to articles

I admire your zeal for editing Wikipedia and adding images to artists' articles. You added this gallery to Matthew Harris Jouett, this gallery to Ary Scheffer, and this gallery to Jean-Baptiste Debret. Too many images in my opinion, they are overwhelming the text. We don't need to necessarily add all or most of an artist's œuvre to their Wikipedia article. Please take a look at WP:GALLERY where it says

A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made.

I've placed a 'gallery cleanup' template on the three articles. We can either continue the discussion here or at the articles themselves. Please ping me if you discuss this elsewhere. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Shearonink Thank you for recommending WP:GALLERY. I will take a look at WP:IUP Flagrant hysterical curious (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I think the galleries are too large, and the pictures don't seem carefully chosen. Some have no caption at all, which is a complete no-no, & others lack caption info explaining why these are significant images. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the galleries from Matthew Harris Jouett, Ary Scheffer, Artemisia Gentileschi, and from Jean-Baptiste Debret. These outsized galleries in Wikipedia articles about artists do not follow WP:GALLERY especially the following:

Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made.

Please think about IF adding a gallery to an article is adding more knowledge about the artist or simply ends up adding visual clutter to articles. Shearonink (talk) 06:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

They were arguably too big, and often not well done. They should not have been removed completely. You need to read WP:GALLERY more carefully. Johnbod (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, I did thanks. Reasonable people can differ on how to interpret policy & guidelines. You have your opinion, I have mine and we can all still collaborate to improve this encyclopedia. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Consider "A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images". We probably need to make this clearer in the text, since a persistent minority still (after over a decade) continue somehow to interpret this as "NO galleries". Johnbod (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course I think a gallery is a reasonable thing to add to or to have in an artist's article, I just think that some galleries are possibly oversized in relation to the text. Shearonink (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

That would be why you completely removed the long-standing one at Artemisia Gentileschi, which included several paintings with their own articles? Johnbod (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

A gallery seemed superfluous to me because the article already had 14 images of Gentileschi's work. If you wish to restore that gallery, fine. If another editor wishes to contest that they can then take up the matter on the talk page and the issue can be discussed if necessary. Shearonink (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps simply stop adding images? Your recent non-gallery additions had many problems, including using a caption in German for a painting in an Italian gallery, by a Flemish painter, in the English Wikipedia; and adding way too many pictures outside a gallery, with extremely excessive whitespace in the code (probaby caused by using Visual Editor, ugh). See e.g. here or here. I've reverted a few, they probably need reverting in many more cases. Fram (talk) 07:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed! Also, while personally I don't usually add the museum, as many do, I always add an indication of the date. You are adding i8mages very randomly, and too fast, apparently without consideration of what the gaps in the existing article may be. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

And you are still adding images willy-nilly, with poor captions, with poor layout, often overwhelming the articles. Something like this is not helpful, this is terrible. Please start discussing your edits and reply to the concerns people have. You are clearly willing to help, but the edits you make contain too many problems at the moment, and continuing as before is not really an option. Fram (talk) 07:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

It's difficult to get this user to pay attention to talk pages, I'm afraid. I've blocked them once before for making wholesale reorganizations of articles and major changes to leads with no explanation, then failing to engage at talk when queried. I've placed a short block to focus their attention here. I believe they honestly are trying to help. —valereee (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  —valereee (talk) 11:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Flagrant hysterical curious, sorry to hear you were blocked, but it was warranted, and hopefully, will be helpful to you.

I know you are capable of listening, and adapting your behavior in response to the concerns of others, because of your dramatic improvement in the area of edit summaries last summer. It took you a while, because while numerous editors commented on your lack of edit summaries starting in February 2019, and then again in March, April, May, and June, your percentage of edit summaries remained around 3 percent, i.e., terrible. But by August, you finally responded, and half of your edits had major summaries, and by November you were over 90% and have stayed there very since. Bravo! Keep up the good work on that account.

Let's hope it doesn't take you months to respond to the concerns others are leaving you about gallery images, because as blocks accumulate, they typically become longer, and you can find yourself blocked for long periods, or indefinitely.

Back in #September 2019, I left you these three bullet points, suggesting a way out of the difficulty you were in then, and back to more productive editing. I wrote:

:* make sure every edit of yours improves the article in some concrete way,

• use an edit summary with every edit, explaining why it's an improvement, and
• respond to other users when they want to discuss something with you here, or at article talk pages

You've effectively dealt with the second bullet. Now, please get to work on the last one: make sure you respond to other editors here on your User talk page when they address you with some concern that is bothering them. It doesn't mean they are "right" or "wrong"; but editors who come here with a civil request or question, deserve some kind of response. Additionally, when you see several editors commenting on the same thing (three have commented on your use of gallery images) that may be an indication that you might need to alter your editing behavior. Which I know you're capable of.

Your block will be over shortly (it doesn't block you from responding here on your talk page if you wish to), and when it is over, I hope you will stay on the right path. In a way, that first bullet is the one that is causing you the most problems, and is also the hardest one of all to tackle, so keep that in mind as you edit. Just keep asking yourself, with every edit: "Is this change a clear improvement to the article? Will most other editors see it that way, too?" If you're not really sure about that second question, then don't make the edit—instead, raise a discussion on the article Talk page, say what changes you are proposing to make, and ask for feedback.

Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Improper reordering, and moving text into the lead

Fhc, I reverted this edit of yours with summary move paragraph from under "Early career" to lead at Smoky Joe Wood, for moving specific detail out of the body, and into the lead, where it doesn't belong. The WP:LEAD is a summary of the body of the article; if you move stuff into the lead, it hardly ever remains a summary, and could become unique detail not present in the body at all; both of those are antithetical to the purpose of the Lead. You appear to have possibly done something similar at John Mighton and Food industry. Please don't do more of this type of edit, until you understand the WP:LEAD guideline better. Moving body text into the lead in an article that was compliant with the LEAD guideline before the move, is rarely a good thing.

In other cases, such as Division of labour or Overtourism, you appear to be moving text around pointlessly, or adding or subtracting blank lines and even though you have left an edit summary, it mostly just says something like, "move text, change format of lead", which doesn't really give any indication of why your change is an improvement to the article.

You're doing much better now in percentage of edits with edit summaries, so keep up the good work. Now you can start thinking about writing your edit summary not just about *what* you did ("moved text around") but *why* you did it; i.e., how does your change improve the article? If you can't come up with a good reason why moving the text around or adding or subtracting paragraph breaks are an improvement to the article, then you should consider whether that edit is really needed. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 11:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be bit on a roll of moving referenced material into the lede, as at Pollock and Eastern pygmy possum. Please don't do that. The lede is merely a summary of the rest of the article, NOT the place to put referenced novel material. That's actually the very first itme in the Don't column at Wikipedia:Lead dos and don'ts. I see this has been brought up to you before - I'm not sure why are ignoring it. Please cease that particular bit of formatting. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Separation of content from citations

Hi there, when you made this edit at Chi Chi DeVayne, you reorganized the text in such a way that some of the prose became separated from its inline citation. Specifically, the whole first paragraph of the Early life and career section was left looking like it was unsourced, because you moved the sentence that had been right after those, together with the citation that covered all of them, to another part of the article. It was a lucky thing that someone raised a concern about the unsourced paragraph on the talk page so that we could figure it out and fix it.

Your edit wasn't bad overall, but could you please be mindful to not separate text from sources when restructuring in the future? Thanks, Armadillopteryx 06:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Armadillopteryx: Thank you for explaining the problem. Flagrant hysterical curious (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Undo of my edits to Bikini variants by @Aditya Kabir: with the comment "doesn't illustrate the text"

Kerri Walsh in 2007

Cheerleaders during the Olympic Beach Volleyball games at Beijing's Chaoyang Park.

I added image Kerri-walsh.jpg near the text for section "Material" and/or "Bikini bottoms" and File:Chaoyangparkpic8.jpg to the section "Pattern" section. Aditya Kabir, can you please explain more about how the two added images do not illustrate the text in the article Bikini variants? Thank you. (Flagrant hysterical curious (talk) 12:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC))

Thank you for asking. WP:NOTGALLERY is the reason for removal. It says, "Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of photographs or media files with no accompanying text. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons." The bottomline for picture use in the Wikipedia is that it increases the understanding of the subject or the topic in some way.

In this case, it is really difficult to see what maybe better understood by the images you posted. In the material section they add nothing, as they are made of the same stuff that almost every bikini is made of, and there are already about 10 images to illustrate that material used for a bikini. You want a bikini bottom picture? There are already 11 in the article. Can you please tell what value does these two new pictures add?

If you want people to look at nice bikini images, adding a template like {{Commons}} or {{Commons category}} to the "See also" section works fine as a lead to the picture, and a lot many like it. That is the Wikipedia way for anyone who want to present random pictures with an article, with ‍a rather flimsy excuse to be in the article. We are not supposed just go and add any and every picture we like. If we did that then this article would have over a thousand pictures edited-in by hundreds of editors.

But, hey, you stopped at a revert, thought about it, and started a discussion. And that is awesome. Two random images that are not even noticeably better than hundreds of others like them can never compensate for this simple feat. 🍻 Cheers. Let's have many more drinks together here. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Caroline Calloway

You are an experienced editor, so I'm not going to leave you a copy of {{uw-v2}}, but I'm baffled by the motivation for this edit. Why did you remove the link to Calloway's official website and replace it with a link to an abusive sub-reddit? How does the external link that you added not fail WP:ELNO #9? Wham2001 (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Wham2001:. I am fairly certain the link still leads to https://www.reddit.com/r/SmolBeanSnark/ after your undo of my edit (as it did before my edit). I think it appears through https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q19818564 as "http://carolinecaloway.com". In my edit, I had just provided visual information regarding where the link would lead.Flagrant hysterical curious (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

You are correct – my apologies. I had failed to spot that the link inserted by Wikidata differed from the official website link in the infobox (which I'd verified by visiting it). The point is that the page ought not to link to Reddit at all. I've fixed the problem by correcting the Wikidata entry. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 07:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Copy edit template on Armenian Genocide

Hi. You placed a "copy edit this article" template in the middle of a section at Armenian Genocide. I couldn't find any copy edit problems with that section, so I removed it - what problem(s) did you see that need addressing? Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 15:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Wikignome Wintergreen: It seemed to me that there could be copy edits possible for (a)heading format in regards to quote ("'s) usage, (b) sentence structure/ punctuation use (in regards to readability) especially concerning "the decision to enter the war and the decision to begin the genocide were part and parcel of the same progress as the war held out the promise of national greatness once the Allies were defeated while the Armenians were seen as an inner enemy holding the Turks back from the national glory that was the dream of the Unionist Central Committee) and/or (c) provision of non-English translations/terms ("Teşkilât-ı Mahsusa" etc.) so I placed the tag. (Flagrant hysterical curious (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC))

I've fixed up the sentence you mentioned so it's less long and wordy, and corrected a typo that made it a bit confusing. I don't think the other things are serious problems, though you can add the template back if you want and someone else will take a look. It'd help to be a little more descriptive of the issues you see and where (you can add reasons to the template using |for=). Also, you can use {{Copy edit section}} if the problems are limited to particular area; {{Copy edit}} is for getting the whole article reviewed, and should go at the top of the article. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 16:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Flagrant hysterical curious, you did the same thing on Community integration#Recreation last month. Please see {{Copy edit}} to learn how to tag a section and specify the problems you feel need addressing. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 20:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Russell Resolutions

Hello, Flagrant hysterical curious. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Russell Resolutions".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

CS1 error on Post office (game)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Post office (game), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)